Bottlenecks: I

Some people take on so much work that they become "bottlenecks." The people around them repeatedly find themselves stuck, awaiting responses or decisions. Why does this happen and what are the costs?

The Niagara River and the Niagara Cantilever Bridge. The turbulence of the river is due, in part, to the sheer volume of water that must pass through the narrow gorge. So it is with bottlenecks in organizations. When the volume of work that must pass through the "bottleneck" exceeds what the bottleneck can handle, turbulence and chaos are the results.

Some people are bottlenecks. We wait for them to decide, or to approve activities or efforts that truly are beneath their station. They and they alone can report on certain activities. They and they alone can represent those activities in meetings. Their calendars are so full that we have trouble scheduling meetings. In frustration, we call these people names: "micromanagers" or "nanomanagers" or something worse.

But labeling them doesn't solve the problem or offer much of a path to understanding it. As their supervisors, if we want to solve the problem, or as subordinates, if we want to work around it or avoid it, we'll do much better if we understand it.

Let's begin with examples of reasons why some people cannot release these tasks to the care of their subordinates or staff or team members.

Pseudo-parental attachments

Some bottleneckers attained their positions by completing particular projects successfully. They maintain emotional attachments to those projects — attachments not as strong as what parents feel for children, but in other ways analogous. Their concern for the welfare of these "child-projects" makes them reluctant to release them to others. Release, if it comes at all, can be incomplete. Thus the bottlenecker remains responsible for work that can be appropriately delegated to others.

Anxiety

Anxiety about the success of efforts that are properly the responsibility of subordinates need not derive from pseudo-parental attachments. It can arise, for example, if the bottlenecker has a mistakenly low opinion of the capabilities of the person responsible for the effort. Or the bottlenecker might fear that the effort could be at risk for other reasons, such as poor design or poor planning. Whatever the source of anxiety, instead of addressing it, the bottlenecker uses the concern to avoid entrusting the effort to the subordinate.

Political ambitions

Some activities Labeling people as micromanagers doesn't solve the problem or offer much of a path to understanding itinherently confer political stature on those who represent them to other parts of the organization. An example is reporting on the status of the development of a new product that's expected to form a future raison d'être for the company. Other examples are negotiating for funding or justifying requests for funding increases. Bottleneckers often strive to be the public face of such efforts, even if they aren't actually involved in the performance of the work itself.

Addiction to feeling needed

Although most of us feel good when others express appreciation for our work, some people measure their own self-worth almost solely in terms of how others see them. For these people, maintaining ownership of activities that others value is more than desirable. It is essential to a definition of self-worth. In a real sense, they can become addicted to feeling needed, and incapable of delegating detailed responsibility for efforts that others regard as important.

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Related articles

When we think, "Paul doesn't trust me," we could be fooling ourselves into believing that
we can read his mind. Unless he has directly expressed his distrust, we're just guessing, and we can
reach whatever conclusion we wish, unconstrained by reality. In project management, as anywhere else,
that's a recipe for trouble.

When we notice similarities between events, or possible patterns of events, we often attribute meaning
to them beyond what we can prove. Sometimes we guess right, and sometimes not. How can we improve our guesses?

When people collaborate on complex projects, the most desirable work tends to go to those with highest
status. When people work alone, they tend to spend more time on the parts of the effort they enjoy.
In both cases, preferences rule. Preferences can lead us astray.

Some supervisors seem to behave as if part of their job description is creating toxic conflict among
their subordinates. It isn't really, of course, but here's a collection of methods bad managers use
that make trouble.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming March 21: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: III

People who behave narcissistically tend to regard themselves as special. They systematically place their own interests and welfare ahead of anyone or anything else. In this part of the series we consider how this claimed specialness affects the organization and its people. Available here and by RSS on March 21.

And on March 28: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: IV

Narcissistic behavior at work is more damaging than rudeness or egotism. It leads to faulty decisions that compromise organizational missions. In this part of the series we examine the effects of constant demands for attention and admiration. Available here and by RSS on March 28.

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline?
Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic
demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people —
call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational
power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain
organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is
therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders.
Read more about this program.

My blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers
resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing
technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your
organization!